Do the Fama–French Factors Proxy for Innovations in Predictive Variables?

The Fama–French factors HML and SMB are correlated with innovations in variables that describe investment opportunities. A model that includes shocks to the aggregate dividend yield and term spread, default spread, and one‐month Treasury‐bill yield explains the cross section of average returns better than the Fama–French model. When loadings on the innovations in the predictive variables are present in the model, loadings on HML and SMB lose their explanatory power for the cross section of returns. The results are consistent with an ICAPM explanation for the empirical success of the Fama–French portfolios.     

Uncertainty,Time‐Varying Fear,and Asset Prices

I construct an equilibrium model that captures salient properties of index option prices, equity returns, variance, and the risk‐free rate. A representative investor makes consumption and portfolio choice decisions that are robust to his uncertainty about the true economic model. He pays a large premium for index options because they hedge important model misspecification concerns, particularly concerning jump shocks to cash flow growth and volatility. A calibration shows that empirically consistent fundamentals and reasonable model uncertainty explain option prices and the variance premium. Time variation in uncertainty generates variance premium fluctuations, helping explain their power to predict stock returns.     

Are the Fama and French Factors Global or Country Specific?

This article examines whether country-specific or global versionsof Fama and French's three-factor model better explain time-seriesvariation in international stock returns. Regressions for portfoliosand individual stocks indicate that domestic factor models explainmuch more time-series variation in returns and generally havelower pricing errors than the world factor model. In addition,decomposing the world factors into domestic and foreign componentsdemonstrates that the addition of foreign factors to domesticmodels leads to less accurate in-sample and out-of-sample pricing.Practical applications of the three-factor model, such as costof capital calculations and performance evaluations, are bestperformed on a country-specific basis.     

On the Life Cycle Dynamics of Venture‐Capital‐ and Non‐Venture‐Capital‐Financed Firms

We use data over 25 years to understand the life cycle dynamics of VC‐ and non‐VC‐financed firms. We find successful and failed VC‐financed firms achieve larger scale but are not more profitable at exit than matched non‐VC‐financed firms. Cumulative failure rates of VC‐financed firms are lower, with the difference driven largely by lower failure rates in the initial years after receiving VC. Our results are not driven by VCs disguising failures as acquisitions or by certain types of VCs. The performance difference between VC‐ and non‐VC‐financed firms narrows in the post‐internet bubble years, but does not disappear.     

Price Discovery in Near‐ and Away‐from‐the‐Money Option Markets

This paper examines the relative price discovery roles of near‐ and away‐from‐the‐money option markets. The evidence shows that, when considering multiple options with different strike prices jointly, option markets have an average information share of 17.6%. However, no individual option market dominates in the price discovery process, higher and lower trading activity options (i.e., near‐ and away‐from‐the‐money options, respectively) each contribute approximately equally to this process. The main implications of these results are that (1) collectively, option markets process a substantial amount of new stock price‐related information, and (2) looking across strike prices, option markets appear to be informationally nonredundant.     

Closing the Loop: Review Process Factors Affecting Audit Staff Follow‐Through

The PCAOB recently expressed concern regarding the sufficiency and effectiveness of review and supervision of audit fieldwork. For the audit review process to succeed as a quality control mechanism, any issues or questions identified by a reviewer must be adequately resolved and documented in the workpapers. If audit review fails to correct for errors/biases in the work of reviewees, there can be serious detrimental effects on audit quality and, in turn, financial statement quality. Our study extends the literature by examining the phase of the review process in which reviewees respond to (or “close”) notes/comments provided by their reviewers. Utilizing an experiment, we find that certain contextual factors (review timeliness and review note frame) influence reviewee follow‐through during this critical phase. Specifically, we find that a delayed review elicits significantly lower effort levels than a timely review. Review note frame (i.e., how the reviewer phrases the rationale given for the underlying directive of a review note) significantly affects reviewee effort and performance when the review is timely. Through mediation analyses, we explore the mediating effect of effort on performance. In addition, we find that reviewer delay leads to greater over‐documentation.     

Risk‐based explanation for the book‐to‐market effect

This paper proposes a risk‐based explanation for the book‐to‐market (B/M) effect. I decompose B/M into net operating asset‐to‐market (NOA/M) and net financing asset‐to‐market (NFA/M) components. Portfolio analysis shows that (i) positive B/M, NOA/M and NFA/M are positively related to future returns and (ii) negative B/M, NOA/M and NFA/M are negatively related to future returns. To the extent that positive B/M, NOA/M and NFA/M act as measures of asset risk and negative B/M, NOA/M and NFA/M act as inverse measures of borrowing risk, the nonlinear relations between B/M, NOA/M and NFA/M and future returns provide some evidence to support the risk‐based explanation for the book‐to‐market effect in stock returns.